Denying Relationship With Deceased In Declaration Suit Not Defamation, Civil Court Must Decide Veracity Of Statements: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that written statements filed by defendants before a civil court in a declartion suit, denying the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased, would not amount to defamation. A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannawar allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondents. It...
The Karnataka High Court has held that written statements filed by defendants before a civil court in a declartion suit, denying the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased, would not amount to defamation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannawar allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondents.
It said “I hold that this is not a case where the statements are per se defamatory so as to disallow the plea of good faith at this stage so as to allow the respondent to go ahead with the prosecution.”
The respondent was one of the daughters of Fakkiravva W/o Huchchappa Lakkanavar. She and her two sisters and mother filed a suit in 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Navalgund seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.02.2016 executed by Huchchappa Lakkanavar in favour of 2nd petitioner was void ab-initio and to declare that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule 'B' properties.
The said suit was filed claiming that they were the legal heirs of Huchchappa Lakkannavar.
It was alleged that in the said suit, the petitioner filed a written statement denying the relationship of the plaintiffs in the suit with Huchchappa Lakkannavar.
According to the respondent, in the written statement and the evidence affidavit of petitioners, they had made defamatory imputations making out a clear offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. With these allegations, the respondent filed the present complaint.
It was allegedly stated by the petitioner that the respondent, her sisters and their mother were not related to deceased Huchchappa DoddaRamappa Lakkannavar; the 1st plaintiff, since Fakkiravva is not the legally wedded wife of Huchchappa.
It was also alleged by the respondents that the petitioner had claimed that the plaintiffs 2-4 were not the children of Huchchappa the 1st plaintiff was a distant relative of Huchchappa and that after the adoption of Huchchappa, the relatives decided to perform the marriage of 1st plaintiff-Fakkiravva with Huchchappa.
When the 1st plaintiff grew up, at that time, some unwanted incident had happened and her marriage was not performed therefore, plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 are not the children of Huchchappa and they do not have any right to the property of Huchchappa, it was allegedly claimed by the petitioners.
The petitioners argued that these averments had been made out of good faith which would fall under Exception 9 to Section 499 of IPC.
The respondent opposed the plea saying that exception 9 to Section 499 of IPC was to be pleaded and proved only at the time of trial.
Plea of good faith cannot be presumed as the same requires to be proved. In the case on hand, though it is stated by the petitioners that these averments had been made out of good faith, it is for the Criminal Court to decide as to whether they have been made, out of good faith or not, on the basis of the evidence to be let in by both the parties," it was argued.
Further it was said that the present stage was too premature to presume good faith and quash the proceedings.
At the outset, the court found that there was no legal bar for filing a private complaint alleging that a party to a civil proceeding has made certain imputations in the pleadings before the Civil Court, which are per se defamatory.
I am also clear that the pendency of the said civil suit is not an impediment for the aggrieved to file a private complaint and without waiting for the final outcome of the suit, he can very well approach the Criminal Court by way of a private complaint seeking to punish the accused for defamatory statements made in the pleadings, provided the averments in the pleadings are totally unconnected to or unwarranted for the issues involved in the civil suit and they are per se defamatory,” it held.
Further, it held that in any civil proceeding, it was necessary for the party concerned to make averments relevant to the issues. If such relevant averments were not made, the Court observed that the Civil Court may not permit the party to make a plea on that subject orally and also to lead evidence.
It was held that it is common knowledge that in civil suits, there cannot be any evidence let in without there being a relevant pleading. The circumstances like relationship between deceased and plaintiffs are too relevant to the core issue of claiming title to the property of deceased Huchchappa.”
Noting that the averments, which are stated to be defamatory, relate to her relationship with the deceased Huchchappa, the bench observed that it would be relevant for the civil Court to decide the issue as to whether plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of declaration or not.
Referring to Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court said that if it was the case of the respondent that these averments were either unnecessary or scandalous, which may tend to prejudice the mind of the Court, then she could have made an application under this provision to the Civil Court seeking to strike out the above averments in the written statement.
The court held that if any such petition was filed, the Civil Court would have to give a finding as to whether these averments had any relevance to the issues involved in the suit and whether they were scandalous, frivolous and vexatious or they are in the nature of causing prejudice in the mind of the Court.
Following this it held that only upon such a finding by the Civil Court, would the respondent be entitled to approach the Criminal Court about the statements being defamatory as scandalous.
The Court concluded: When the averments are very relevant to the issues involved in the suit and the suit is pending, the respondent is precluded from filing a private complaint. It is for the respondent either to approach the respective Civil Court under Order VI Rule 16 or to wait till the final outcome of the civil suit. In this case, the petitioners have made these averments that are very relevant for the issues, which according to them have been stated with due care and attention. Whether these averments made by the petitioners in the written statement are statements of truth or not is going to be decided by the Civil Court because there is a relevant issue on the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Huchchappa. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners have made the above averments without due care and attention.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
Appearance: Advocate B.S. Kukanagoudar for Petitioners.
Advocate S.L. Matti for respondent.
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
Case Title: Yallappa & Another AND Kallavva Kuriyavar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100331 OF 2023